R511: Instructional
Technology Foundations (Spring 2023)
IST Department,
IU School of Education
(Section 10665: Online Version; 15 week)
Syllabus: http://curtbonk.com/R511_online_syllabus_spring_2023.htm
Zoom
(Optional Synchronous Sessions): https://IU.zoom.us/j/8123222878
Course Links to Dropbox and Canvas: http://canvas.iu.edu/
R511 in Canvas: https://iu.instructure.com/courses/2118927
Instructor: Professor Curt
Bonk, Indiana University, Email: cjbonk@indiana.edu
Bonk
Homepage:
http://www.curtbonk.com/
Spring of 2023 Student Info in
Padlet: https://padlet.com/sunseol/l9cpudfcxkjrqg3n
(Examples from spring of 2022: https://padlet.com/sunseol/b1yr49ljxwc6smkc)
Instructional Assistants: Kathryn Dixon dixonka@iu.edu and Conghui Liu congliu@iu.edu
and…Christian Smeltzer cmsmeltz@iu.edu
Course
Description
This is a foundational course in
Instructional Systems Technology (IST) and provides an overview of
instructional technology (IT) (which many people refer to as “educational
technology” (or just “ed tech”) and more recently, some might refer to “learning
technology” and “digital technology”). Your instructor was trained at the
University of Wisconsin where they referred to the field as educational
technology, in which he minored, while majoring in educational psychology.
Hence, he will refer to the field using different terms this semester. The
course also explores the important and fast-emerging field of human performance
technology (HPT). We will have different guests each week in Zoom to discuss
their careers and views on trends in the field. Some of these people are in the
reading list. I also have a playlist of the YouTube videos from the guests of
the fall 2021 semester (see page 6 of syllabus below).
Given that many IST students come
from diverse fields and backgrounds, R511 provides a sense of history and an
explanation of how the components of instructional technology, educational
technology, learning technology, human performance technology, and other
associated fields all fit together. The course has been designed to focus primarily
on IT and HPT. An introduction to IT and HPT includes definitions, theories,
histories, trends and issues, and career opportunities. Class discussions and
activities will be devoted to broadening your understanding of these fields as
they relate to learning and performance in diverse organizations and
institutions (e.g., schools, colleges and universities, military training
departments, corporate learning, non-profit entities, government settings) as
well as in more self-directed and often solitary educational pursuits.
Learning
Objectives
Those
enrolled in this course are expected to develop an understanding of the basic
vocabulary and underlying principles of IT and HPT as well as learn about many
of the key contributors to these fields. By the end of this course, you should
be able to:
1.
Terms: Use and comprehend many of the
basic terms in IT and HPT with comprehension, confidence, and high ethical
character.
2.
Definitions
and Frameworks: Generate
personal definitions and conceptual frameworks for thinking about the fields of
IT and HPT as a means to better engage with the content and expand one’s
learning.
3.
Conceptual
Models: Compare
and contrast different conceptual models, frameworks, and definitions that have
emerged over the past century or more; in particular, the past two or three
decades.
4.
History: Trace the evolution of major
ideas in IT and HPT over time, including being able to explicate one’s internal
understanding in the forms of concept maps, timelines, taxonomies, flowcharts, &
models.
5.
Leaders: Begin to associate key people
with different ideas in terms of HPT and IT. As the course moves into the
latter stages, one should begin to discern people with common perspectives or
instructional philosophies.
6.
Trends: Identify and discuss trends and
issues that affect the fields of IT and HPT today. In addition, one should
predict new trends and concerns on the near horizon.
7.
Careers: Gain an understanding of career
development and potential roles in IT, HPT, and associated fields. As part of
this, one should learn about key professional organizations and associations as
well as popular and emerging conferences, institutes, and meetings in the
field. One might even become a member, reviewer, or contributor within one or
more of such professional organizations. Exploring possible career paths and
goals is a part of this objective.
8.
Potential
Role: Begin to
realize the vast job opportunities in the field as well as some in related
fields; and ponder your potential role or responsibilities in one or more such
positions.
9.
Personal
Network: Begin
to grow your network of contacts in the field of instructional and educational
technology through meetings with synchronous guest experts as well as archived
videos of such esteemed leaders.
10.
Standards:
Become aware of
performance standards advocated by different professional organizations and
institutions, technical reports and white papers, and governmental policies.
11.
Values: Appreciate the different values
espoused by those in these fields as they push for greater access,
instructional efficiencies, effective educational processes, and generally
enhancing the human condition through educational and instructional
technologies.
12.
Ethical
Challenges: Grapple
with ethical challenges that characterize IT, HPT, and related fields.
13.
Technology
Awareness: Learn
about some of the emerging learning technologies and tools helping shape the
field. And obtain such experience and competence in using one or more of these
technologies.
14.
Technology
Competence: Become
savvy with the content and technology resources provided for learning the
topic(s) of each week in the R511 course (including the weekly videos, digital
documents, PowerPoint slides, etc.). By the end of the course, the learner will
have the ability to respond to questions and concerns using such content and
materials.
15.
Continual
Conversation: Understand
that there is no one right answer for many of the key issues, questions, and
concerns that will be discussed in the course. Be flexible at times with such
ambiguity in the field (including the definition of what the field actually
is). In effect, you will have a continuing conversation with your peers in this
course as well as with experts, the instructor, and others.
15 Week Schedule (Note: Topics
may change depending upon circumstances)
Week
1 (Jan 9): Module #1: Course Intro and Overview of the Field
Week
2 (Jan 16): Module #2: Instructional Technology Overview
Week
3 (Jan. 23): Module #3: Instructional Systems Design
Week
4 (Jan. 30): Module #4: Instructional Development Process
Week
5 (Feb 6): Module #5: Theories of Learning: Behaviorism
Week
6 (Feb 13): Module #6: Cognitive & Constructivist
Perspectives (Task #3 & #4 due)
Week
7 (Feb 20): Module #7: Authentic Learning & Cog Apprenticeship
Week
8 (Feb 27): Module #8: Theories of Learning Comparison
Week
9 (March 6): Module #9: History of IT
Week
10 (March 20): Module #10: Trends and Issues in IT
Week
11 (March 27): Module #11: Human Performance Tech: Concepts and Process
Models
Week
12 (April 3): Module #12: History, Trends, & Issues in HPT (Task
#5 & Task #6 due)
Week
13 (April 10): Module #13: Prof Ethics & Social Change
Week 14 (April 17): Module
#14: Career and Professional Development (Task #2 due)
Week
15 (April 24): Module #15: More Career & PD & Project
Sharing
Assignments,
Grading Criteria, and Due Dates
The
course will be broken into five main areas or modules:
1. Instructional
technology definitions, concepts, models, overview.
2. Theories of
learning and learning approaches.
3. Trends, issues,
and history of instructional technology.
4. HPT definitions,
concepts, models, theories, history, and trends and issues.
5. IT and HPT
career and professional development, ethics, and standards.
|
Tasks/Assignments
|
Points
|
Due Dates
|
|
1. Weekly blog
reflection on the readings
|
40
points
|
Due
each week
|
|
2. Blog reflection
paper
|
40
points
|
April
17 (Blog reflection paper and completed blog postings)
|
|
3. Learning Matrix,
Expert Profile, or Extended Book Reading
|
30
points
|
February
13 (Midterm) (with 5 day grace period)
|
|
4. Video and
Script on an IT Issue or Trend
|
30
points
|
February
13 (Midterm) (with 5 day grace period)
|
|
5. IT and/or HPT
Display or Book Review
|
30
points
|
April
3 (Finals) (with 5 day grace period)
|
|
6. Final Project
and Reflection (see options)
|
50
points
|
April
3 (Finals) (with 5 day grace period)
|
Note: Working in
teams on Tasks #3, #4, #5, and #6 is optional, but encouraged.
Total
Points = 220 (Grading
will be according to a 90-80-70-60 scale; see below.)
Grades:
220
or more = A+
205
= A
198
= A-
190
= B+
183
= B
176
= B-
168
= C+
161
= C
154
= C-
132
= D
Grading
Guidelines:
All
papers will be evaluated for criteria such as: (1) organization and clarity;
(2) coherence and flow; (3) content appropriateness and relevancy; (4) apparent
effort expended and completeness; (5) originality and creativity; and (6)
attention to details (including the use of APA 6th or 7th
edition where appropriate). I will use more detailed grading rubrics for
several of the tasks.
Lateness: I
have a 120-hour (5 day) lateness policy with no penalties for any assignment
(i.e., a 5 day grace period). Anything submitted after that 120-hour cushion or
window can lose 1 point per day unless you ask for an extension. So, if it says
it is due Monday at midnight, you actually have until Saturday night at
midnight to turn it in.
Mondays:
Everything
is due on Mondays. Every optional synchronous meeting is on Monday night.
Incompleteness,
Copyright, Plagiarism, and Original Work: I expect personally created,
unique work on all assignments. Please do not try to cheat the system or this
course. Please
acquaint yourself with the “IU Code of
Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct” for the
concept of plagiarism. If you are unsure of the rules and regulations regarding
plagiarism, you can take a self-paced
course
on Understanding Plagiarism from Dr. Ted Frick from the IST department. This
website is devoted to teaching people about plagiarism and it has tutorials and
tests (info). Any assignment
containing plagiarized material will be awarded a grade of F. At the discretion
of the instructor, any assignment turned in that is deemed incomplete, failing
to address the task objectives, or seriously flawed in any way may be turned
back to the student for revision or correction of the problem. No incompletes
will be awarded unless there is an emergency or mutually agreed upon reason.
Textbooks and Resources
No
particular book is required for this course. Book chapters and articles are
available in Dropbox. If you want to purchase the books
below, please try to acquire cheap used versions at Amazon as well as Half.com,
AbeBooks.com, and Half-Priced Books. But do see below for recommended and free
books.
Instructional
Assistants:
My instructional assistants, Conghui Liu
and
Katie Dixon, will give feedback on your weekly blog posts. They will also help
me coordinate class activities and plans.
Recommended
Books and Resources:
1.
Al
Januszewski & Michael Molenda (2008). Educational technology: A
definition with commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Amazon; Abebooks
2.
Robert
A. Reiser & John V. Dempsey (Eds.) (2018). Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc. (Note: the second edition of this book
from 2007 is much cheaper to find online used and perhaps is all you need. The
third edition is cheaper too.) (see Dropbox)
3. Ali A. Carr-Chellman
& Gordon Rowland (Eds.) (2017). Issues in technology, learning, and
instructional design: Classic and contemporary issues. NY: Routledge.
(Note: Free e-book at IU: https://iucat.iu.edu/iub/16124646) (see Dropbox)
4.
Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (2021). Design for Learning: Principles, Processes, and
Praxis (1st ed.). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id (free)
5.
Olaf Zawacki-Richter & Insung Jung (Eds.) (2022). Handbook
of open, distance and digital education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0351-9 (free)
6.
Donald
Clark, Great Minds on Learning podcast (21 shows), https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/great-minds-on-learning/id1582598860
Two
Bonus Bonk Books (free) and free course: You also have access to two free e-books
from the course instructor:
Curtis J. Bonk
& Elaine Khoo (2014). Adding Some TEC-VARIETY: 100+ Activities for
Motivating and Retaining Learners Online. OpenWorldBooks and Amazon
CreateSpace: Free book: http://tec-variety.com/; free chapters
at http://tec-variety.com/freestuff.php
Elaine Khoo
& Curtis J. Bonk (2022). Motivating and Supporting Online Learners.
Burnaby, BC, Canada: Commonwealth of Learning. Free
book available: http://hdl.handle.net/11599/4481
and
free course available: https://colcommons.org/welcome/coursedetails/8; https://www.colvee.org/
Bonus Bonk Resource: To help you
understand learning and instructional theories, you might also want to access and
watch one or more of my set of video lectures on learning theories developed
for a different course (i.e., P540). Video Lectures: http://curtbonk.com/8-pack
Optional
Weekly Synchronous Meetings (i.e., chats with former IST students, retired
IST professors, book and article authors, IST leaders, and others. Note: these
are optional to attend; however, they will be recorded. You must watch and blog
on at least eight of them. Please ask at least one guest a question or send it
to me ahead of time via email.). After these sessions, I will typically lecture
for 30 minutes max followed by some type of interactive group activity (e.g.,
debate, brainstorming, discussion, etc.).
I
will use Zoom for optional weekly meetings on
Tuesday nights of around an hour for guests chats with alums of the IST
program as well as textbook authors, book authors, former master’s and doctoral
students, retired/emeritus professors from the program, prominent researchers
and scholars in the field (including those whose articles we read), and high
profile people from the IST field in corporate, consulting, or non-profit
setting. The past couple of years, these people have included Marcy Driscoll
(FSU), Rob Foshay, Albert Ritzhaupt (U of FL), Barbara Lockee (Virginia Tech), John
Savery, Jake Enfield (George Mason), Ellen Wagner (AECT), Richard Mayer (UC-SB),
Bill and Sunnie Watson (Purdue), Shironica Karunanayaka (the Open
University of Sri Lanka), Som Naidu (Melbourne), Pratima Enfield (JHU), etc. They will
discuss their careers in the field, often in line with the weekly topic, and
captivate you with their personal stories, life-changing decisions, and sage
advice. I have had some high profile and illuminating guests in R511 during the
past few years. See playlist of guests from the fall of 2021 below.
As
per below, I have recently published on this approach (see
articles in Dropbox):
Bonk, C. J. (2018, November). Tapping into
History Via Video: Enlisting the Legends and Legacies of Our Field. TechTrends, 62(6),
538-540. DOI: 10.1007/s11528-018-0332-3
I
typically invite a different person for each week of the course. It will likely
be a different time each week but most likely at night. You have the option to
attend any or all of these or skip them entirely. If you attend these one-hour
sessions, you can ask them any question about the field or their professional
life or research that you want. The conversation might be
about the topic of the week, what they learned about the field when in graduate
school, their current or past job responsibilities, major projects and
publications, professional accomplishments, and any trends and issues that they
see for the field now or on the near horizon. They will be recorded. The link
will be shared and also posted to Canvas. Remember these sessions are OPTIONAL!
Task Option:
If you attend 4
or more of the optional synchronous sessions and write a 2-3 page single spaced
reflection paper on what the guest speakers said about the field of IT and/or
HPT, you can replace Task #3, #4, or #5 (Important Note: “or” means just
once can you use this option).
If you attend 7
or more of these sessions and write a 4 page single spaced reflection paper
with a one page comparison chart or other visual in an appendix, you can
replace the final assignment (i.e., Task #6). If you select this option, I want
you to include at least 3 similarities across two or more guests and at least 3
differences. Summary tables or charts are always helpful and informative. Look
for themes in the trends and issues which they mention for the field of IST.
The inclusion of a few direct quotes is optional but strongly encouraged. How
has the field of IT and HPT evolved and changed according to these experts
including many former professors and students of this class? And where is it
headed? What insights have these guests revealed or hinted at? Can you come up
with a summary of the top 10 kernels of wisdom from these guests and relate
these to your own future career goals?
You can also
watch the guests from last semester in the Fall of 2021. There is a playlist in YouTube for
all of them.
Guests
in R511 Instructional Technology Foundations
Fall
2021, 17 Sessions and 18 Guests
Playlist
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHcReRoW2lxPeQcA1LKHnjl1lMPllpKWp
|
1. August 21, 2021
|
Lin Lin and Yunjo
An, University of North Texas
|
(1:09:57): https://youtu.be/ZRF7Mg-5ShU
|
|
2. August 24, 2021
|
Terry Anderson,
Athabasca University, Canada
|
(1:09:57): https://youtu.be/ZRF7Mg-5ShU
|
|
3. August 31, 2021
|
Khendum Gyabak,
University of Minnesota
|
(1:51:19):
https://youtu.be/ekgVOglCsaM
|
|
4. Sept. 9, 2021
|
Rachel Koblic
from 2U
|
(1:14:12):
https://youtu.be/d9qpy-GaYwQ
|
|
5. Sept. 17, 2021
|
Richard Mayer, UC
Santa Barbara
|
(1:17:47): https://youtu.be/pVo7IRsbgkA
|
|
6. Sept. 21, 2021
|
Brent Wilson
Univ. of Colorado Denver
|
(1:16:08):
https://youtu.be/iJqJULyIo60
|
|
7. Sept. 21, 2021
|
Scott Grabinger,
Univ. of Colorado Denver
|
(1:01:54): https://youtu.be/PgnFFO2gtzw
|
|
8. Sept. 26, 2021
|
Tom Reeves, U. of
Georgia on authentic learning
|
(1:12:24): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pSZJiW3XTw
|
|
9. Sept. 29, 2021
|
Anita Vyas,
Baylor Univ. College of Medicine
|
(1:16:48): https://youtu.be/CLMEbiGrYJs
|
|
10. Oct. 4, 2021
|
Tim Newby, Purdue
Univ.
|
(1:12:11):
https://youtu.be/HfAfIjBm8k8
|
|
11. Oct. 12, 2021
|
Kyle Peck, Penn
State
|
(1:10:38): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycKFA6x-f-Q
|
|
12. Oct. 18, 2021
|
Punya Mishra, ASU
|
(1:06:19): https://youtu.be/jBFIiB11N5I
|
|
13. Oct. 26, 2021
|
YaTing Teng,
Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences
|
(1:23:39): https://youtu.be/_ZoWnOHhb_c
|
|
14. Nov. 1, 2021
|
Allison Rossett,
San Diego State University
|
(1:14:19): https://youtu.be/-a3PrynIi4A
|
|
15. Nov. 8, 2021
|
Jim Klein,
Florida State U.
|
(1:08:44): https://youtu.be/IHVk0Qh74ZQ
|
|
16. Nov. 11, 2021
|
Amy Bradford,
University of Oklahoma
|
(1:05:44):
https://youtu.be/TnFE4OA7EaM
|
|
17. Nov. 14, 2021
|
Merve Basdogan,
Indiana U.
|
(1:22:10): https://youtu.be/4PCSXArug4k
|
Guest Zoom link: https://IU.zoom.us/j/8123222878
Date and Time
|
Week Topic
|
Guest(s)
|
Before Guest Chat
|
|
Week
1. Monday, Jan. 9, 7 pm EDT
|
Course Orientation
|
Sunmi Seol,
Stanford University
|
Orientation before and after guest
chat. (Q&A in Google Jamboard)
|
|
Week
2. Monday January 16, 7:00 pm EDT
|
IT Overview
|
Zihang Shao, IU East and Ling Qian, University of Akron
|
Before
Guests: 30 minute lecture and then students bring in definitions of ed tech &
instruct. tech to discuss
|
|
Week 3.
Monday January 23, 7 pm EDT
|
ISD
|
Cheryl Murphy,
Vice
Provost for Distance Education and leader of the Global Campus, University
of Arkansas
|
30 minute lecture and then AMA (Ask Me
Anything) with Curt Bonk (Jamboard).
|
|
Week 4.
Monday January 30, 7 pm EDT
|
ID Process
|
Nathaly Gal and Yue
Ma,
Saint Xavier Univ. & Baylor Univ.
|
30 minute lecture and then discussion
of blog posts thus far.
(Flipgrid?)
|
|
Week 5. Monday
February 6, 7 pm EDT
|
Behaviorism
|
Renee Hung,
Brandeis University
|
30 minute lecture and then group discussion:
Is behaviorism dead?
|
|
Week
6. Monday February 13, 7 pm EDT
|
Cognitive & Construct. Theory
|
Mengyuan Zhao, CourseNetworking
|
30 minute lecture and then discussion
of articles (Jamboard).
|
|
Week 7.
Monday February 20, 7 pm EDT
|
Authentic Learning
|
Ozgur Ozdemir and Remzi
Kizilboga
|
30 minute lecture and then students
share examples of authentic learning and discuss the role of the
instructional designer in authentic learning.
|
|
Week 8.
Monday February 27, noon
|
Theory Comparison
|
|
30 minute lecture and
then best theory debate.
|
|
Week
9. Monday March 6, 7 pm EDT
|
History of IT
|
Jason K. McDonald &
Richard E. West; Design for Learning: Principles, Processes, and
Praxis
|
30
minute lecture and discussion of blog posts.
|
|
Week
10. Monday March 20, 7 pm EST
|
Trends and Issues in IT
|
Robert Kozma (new book: Make the world a
better place: Design with passion, purpose and values.
|
30 minute lecture and then discussion:
Does media influence learning? Who wins the debate: Clark or Kozma?
(Jamboard)
|
|
Week
11. Monday March 27, 7 pm EST
|
HPT Concepts
|
John Graves,
Change Management Consultant, Educational Psychologist, Adventurer, Emerson
Human Capital Consulting, San Francisco
|
30 minute lecture and try out 1 or 2
Live Online Learning Activities (LOLA) book from Thiagi.
|
|
Week 12.
Monday April 3, 7 pm EST
|
History and Trends HPT
|
No
Guests Scheduled at this time.
|
Discuss
ten standards of HPT and What is HPT challenge (teams in breakout rooms).
|
|
Week 13.
Monday April 10, 7 pm EST
|
Ethics and Change
|
AMA (Ask Me Anything) Curt Bonk. (Jamboard)
|
Students find and bring an ethical
issue to discuss. (Padlet)
|
|
Week 14.
Monday April 17, 7 pm EST
|
Career and PD (ed tech jobs)
|
No Guests Scheduled at this time.
|
Job posting activity: Students share
sample job postings and discuss.
|
|
Week 15.
Monday April 24, 7 pm EST
|
More Career & PD
|
No Guests Scheduled: Present final
projects.
|
|
R511 Course Tasks (see Dropbox for task examples)
Reading Reflections
Task #1: Blog
Reflections (40 Points): Instead of a large class
discussion forum, you will create a Weblog (i.e., a blog) to reflect on your
personal article readings and ideas related to the class. What concepts and
ideas resonate with you? What do you disagree with? What do you find intriguing?
And so on. A minimum of 15 posts (40 points). The length of each post will
vary. But a minimum of 125 words per post. You might create a WordPress or some
other blogging tool. Please share the URL of your blog with me. Katie, Conghui,
and I will be giving feedback on these blog postings. There are 3 or 4 or 5
people in every blog team. You will also give feedback to people in your team
each week. Please give at least 3 of your team members feedback by the end of
each week (by Saturday). Team member feedback should be at least six sentences
per post. This is a weekly task.
Task #2: Blog Reflection paper (40
points):
I want you to draft a 2-3 page single-spaced
reflection paper on your blog postings (i.e., a super summary of what you
learned this semester). What issues and controversies does
the field of IST/educational technology face? What has the field contributed
thus far? Where is it headed? Based on your readings, what scholars in the
field of IST have you resonated with and why? What or who has really opened
your eyes? Please post it to Canvas.
Midterm Tasks (In Teams of Two Preferred (Tasks #3 and #4)
Task #3: Option A. Designing a
Learning Theories Matrix and Explanation Guide (30 points)
In
this task, I want you to work with one other course member and display your
basic understanding of the underlying concepts and principles of behaviorism,
cognitive theory, constructivism, and cognitive apprenticeship in theory and
application. As a team of two (or three) people or by yourself, you will
negotiate your understanding. In essence, you will create a matrix table that
indicates characteristics, principles, theorists, and examples for at least 3
learning theories. You will develop a customized matrix that showcases your
understanding of the three frameworks and how they fit into your context. The
context could be a business, school, university, government agency, non-profit
organization, consulting firm, or military training institute. Please be sure
to mention how your matrix would affect approaches to instructional design and
delivery. Prepare a comparison advance organizer (matrix table) and an
accompanying explanation guide that walks others through your customized
learning theories matrix. The visual should be a maximum of 2 pages while a one-page
single spaced reflection paper of your learning growth and on the ideas in your
display should accompany it (i.e., 3 pages total).
This
assignment will be graded for its overall originality, logic, clarity,
parsimony, relevance, and persuasiveness. The main terms used should be explained
or defined. Effort should be made to include terms and ideas from both the
readings as well as the class discussions in Canvas. There should be a brief overview
of each theory. The categories and format of different classifications in the
table should make comparisons and contrasts relatively easy.
Task
#3 Option B: Expert Profile: In this option, I want you
to choose one of the authors from our reading list and write a professional
profile of that scholar. You might read his or her bio from their homepage,
Google Scholar website, ResearchGate or Academia.edu account, blog, Twitter
account, LinkedIn page, or other sources. You might watch a couple of his or
her online video presentations. Similarly, you might find an online interview
with that person in the AECT Legacies and Legends videos (http://aectlegends.org/#). In your 2-3 page single spaced paper (not counting
references and appendices), you will discuss his or her evolution or track in
the field. Why is he or she famous? Where did this scholar grow up and later study?
Did the scholar have experience in the field prior to starting research? What
topics has this person studied in addition to the one we are studying in class?
How have her or her interests changed or evolved over time? Has this author
co-published with others from our list? Can you find out what this author is
studying now? Has this scholar revised her ideas over time? Best performance
will be to find the author or colleagues of the author to augment your
understanding. You might also directly email this scholar for such information
or to answer specific questions that you may have. You can do this task by
yourself or with a partner—if so, it is 3-4 pages single-spaced).
Task
#3 Option C: Extended Book Reading and Analysis: Also noted in
the earlier recommended book section of this syllabus, there is a brand new
version of the Robert (Bob) Reiser and Jack Dempsey book (i.e., the long
awaited 4th edition) from which we are reading many chapters written
for earlier editions of this book. You can do this
task by yourself or with a partner (or two). It is titled:
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V.
(Eds.) (2018). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology
(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. (see Dropbox)
As
my friend Dr. Bob Reiser mentioned to this class when he was a guest in Zoom,
there are many new chapters in the fourth edition of the popular book. Hence,
in this option, you will read 3-5 chapters that are not already assigned in the
R511 syllabus and analyze them. What key chapters were the most interesting or
engaging to you and why? What did you learn when reading them that we had not
already discussed in R511? Why are certain trends and ideas discussed and
debated in these particular chapters important to the field of instructional
technology? You might attempt to make the case for including these chapters
next time. Finally, what did you read that confirmed what you have learned in
R511 thus far? In terms of length, estimate about 1 page of content per chapter
reviewed or at least 3 pages total, not counting appendices and references. (At
least 4 pages with a partner.)
Task #4: Creating a
Script and Video for an Issue or Trend (30 points)
In
the same team or working alone, you will create a video of some pressing issue
or trend in the field of IT or HPT. The purpose of this task is to help you
better understand the history, issues, trends, and views surrounding the IT or
HPT field. Please select an issue that seems highly pressing or important to
you. Next, develop a script that discusses the issue from different points of
view. After that, put this script into a video format which should be of 5-10
minutes in length (12 minutes maximum). A video creation tool like Go Animate,
Moovly, PowToon, VideoScribe, Wideo, Make Web Video, or some other such tool
can help. Finally, you should complete this task with a one-page maximum single
spaced reflection paper discussing your stance on the issue as well as the
process you went through in creating your video. Make sure to include
supporting evidence and place the issue in your own context, including your
possible role in the future in terms of this issue or trend. Please post a link
to your video in Canvas and attach your reflection paper.
This
assignment will be graded for its overall originality, completeness or depth, logic
and coherence, clarity, parsimony, relevance, and persuasiveness. The script
should include at least two characters discussing or debating an issue, trends,
or concept. Key terms within that issue should be included. References should
be included where appropriate. And substantial evidence should be provided to back
up any claims made.
Task
#4 Examples:
1. The Relative Advantages and Disadvantages of Massive Open Online
Courses (MOOC’s), by Michael
Karlin and Sabina Ramazanova, November 4, 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq47rjTP2Wc
2. R511 Midterm Video Flipped Classroom, by Roger
Dreher, Angie Leuchtmann, Kim Woodward, March 7, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcr3_aZT_xQ&feature=youtu.be
3. March 8, 2016,
Ryan Russell and Geng (Roy) Niu, R511 Task 4, Open Educational Resources, R511:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1giHtFjzHQc
4. March 8, 2016,
Deb Cole and Channelle Jones, HPT Task 4, R511
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XiD_9haSU8&feature=youtu.be
5. October 21,
2016, Merve Basdogan, Self-Regulated Learning (SRL), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYpouHO2eJ8&feature=youtu.be
6.
October
26, 2016, R511, Rob Elliot, Erin Milanese, and Patrick Walsh Traditional
Textbook (8:11): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B25AtCR9Ddd5NE9DaS16RlpiMW8/view
7.
October
9, 2017, R511, Best Practices for Reducing Extraneous Cognitive Load, Task 4 by
Sara Finnigan, Jonathan Coleman, and Sarah Skreko: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fEC5rFCATw&feature=youtu.be
8. October 13, 2019,
Machine Learning in Education, R511, Spring 2019, Tina Closser and Sunmi Seol, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeti7aT03nw&feature=emb_logo
Final Tasks (Task #5 is
individual; Task #6 is individual or team-based)
Task #5 Option A: Displaying Understanding
of IT and/or HPT (30 points; completed individually)
This task has three pages. On
page one, using the terms below and at least 10-15 additional terms learned in
this class, I want you to create a graphical representation (e.g., Venn
diagram, comparison and contrast chart, taxonomy, timeline, flowchart, mindmap,
concept map, etc.) to show how these terms relate to each other. To explain
this diagram, include a second page that lists your own definitions for each
term and a third page which contains a 2 or 3 paragraph summary explaining the
ideas, connections, and relationships in your visual design or diagram. If some
of these terms overlap for you, feel free to combine these or choose other more
relevant terms or entirely new terms in your diagram. Here are some starter terms:
1. Instructional Technology; 2. Educational Technology; 3. Instructional
Systems Technology; 4. Instructional Systems Design; 5. Instructional Design;
and 6 Human Performance Technology. Please add additional terms of your own
choosing.
These visuals depictions will be
graded on many aspects or dimensions. For instance, I will look at their
overall connectedness, macrostructure, micro linkages or details, casual
relations, descriptions and explanations or relationships made, and formatting
or organization. In addition, creativity and innovation in your design and
ideas will be assessed.
Task
#5 Option B: Book Review: You might do a 3-4 single spaced page review of one
of the books recommended for this course (or something else that you find).
Read at least 75 percent of the book you selected. In such a book review, you
might map out the strengths, weaknesses, potential audiences and uses, key
issues, etc. Just what key terms and concepts did you learn from this book?
What remains missing from the text and is a potential opportunity for others? A
mini-glossary of personal definitions for 20-25 key terms and concepts found in
this book might be included in an appendix at the end of the review. In
addition, you might post a snippet of your review to Amazon for a bonus point.
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V.
(Eds.) (2018). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology
(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. (See Dropbox)
Carr-Chellman, A. A., & Rowland, G.
(Eds.) (2017). Issues in technology, learning, and instructional design:
Classic and contemporary issues. NY: Routledge. (Note: This is a free
e-book at IU: https://iucat.iu.edu/iub/16124646) (see Dropbox)
McDonald, J. K. & West, R. E. (2021). Design for Learning: Principles, Processes, and
Praxis (1st ed.). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id
Task
#5 Option C: Debate Review: If you choose the second book above by Carr-Chellman
and Rowland above, you might reflect on 3 or 4 or 5 of the point-counterpoint debates
in that book in a 3-4 page single spaced paper. What are the issues raised? Who
won the debate and why? What are the new possibilities for the field and for
education in general? Why are these particular issues controversial or
important? What role can educational and instructional technologists play in
this area? Any visuals (e.g., flowcharts of the discussion, pro and con tables,
comparison and contrast charts, unique diagrams, mindmaps or concept maps, or
simply a text recap of the prevailing issues and opportunities) are welcome in
your debate review. You might put key terms from the different chapters in an
appendix at the end. Please include the references to the reviewed chapters at
the end.
Task #6: Final Project Options (50 points)
The final project will exhibit
your understanding of IT and HPT. There are four options for this task which
are listed below. You can work alone or in a team. It is your choice.
Option A: Promotional Visual
Material. Think
of the project as an advertisement or a promotional piece that presents the
fields as you explain them to people in your context. This promotional piece can
be in whatever platform (e.g., a website, a video, or 2-4 page brochure) you
feel most appropriate as long as it meets the requirements as expressed in the
grading rubric. The visual or graphic should answer the following questions for
the intended audience: What do IT and HPT fields mean to you? Where did IT and
HPT come from? Who are the influential people and what are the “big ideas”? How
might you implement IT and HPT in your organization? Remember, this is 30% of
your grade and it also serves as a capstone to what you have learned! A 1-2
page single spaced reflection paper should be included with this assignment. First,
that paper should explain the conceptual aspects of your website design,
brochure, or similar type of promotional material. Second, it should include a
recap of key ideas that you have learned in the course in the context of your past,
present, and anticipated future plans in the field.
Task #6 Option A Examples:
1. IU School of
Medicine, Medical Imaging Technology Online MRI Education, Kellie Cranfill,
Debra Patterson, Ashley Marshall: R511, Fall 2016, December 13, 2016: http://bonk511-mri.weebly.com/education-at-iupui.html
2. Where Did HPT
and Ed Tech Come From?, Sarah McDonough, R511, Fall 2016 (Timeglider):
December 13, 2016: http://sarahmcdonoug1.wixsite.com/website/the-roots-of-both-fields
3.
Librarians
for Instructional Technology, Latrice Booker, R511, Fall 2016, December 13,
2016, http://bookerlr2000.wixsite.com/librariansforit/cognitivism
4. What is
Instructional Technology (Website), Channelle Jones and Deb Cole
http://r511bonk.weebly.com/
5.
"Cousins
but Not Twins: Instructional Technology and Human Performance Technology,”
Merve Basdogan and Brett Gary, R511, Fall 2016, December 13, 2016:
http://educbasdogan.wixsite.com/511final
6.
Dec
12, 2017, Bev Wilgenbusch: https://prezi.com/view/UrYTxG89nM3FRZKUBcDI/
7.
December
12, 2017, Lisa Milsom and Michale Siverio: https://msiverio.wixsite.com/r511
8.
December
12, 2017, Katie Jantaraweragul: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdQqe40z0FYMfMl51v5ccMks4GJpBEgpStANWgalXf-yUqLnQ/viewform
9.
December
12, 2017, Raj
and Khadijah: https://akhadijah.wixsite.com/r511
10.
December
12, 2017, Rachael
Zeiher Kean: https://razeiher.wixsite.com/edtechcoms
11. December 12,
2017, Matthew
Willey: https://sway.com/QGdiCv7p64DFBe8A?ref=Link
12. December 11,
2019, Instructional Technology and Human Performance Technology, R511, Spring
2019, Matt Brown, http://pages.iu.edu/~mb2/EDUC-R511-Task6/
Option B: Useful Textual Material.
In
this option, instead of a visual or graphical overview and reflection, I want students
to create a text-based summary. Such a text might be a wikibook, mobile book,
study guide, glossary, series of job aids, technical report, white paper,
research report, or something similar. This text material should explicate some
aspects of IT or HPT. You might attempt to publish it or make it available free
to the world community. A 1-2 page single spaced reflection paper should be
included with this assignment. First of all, that paper should explain the conceptual
aspects of your final project. Second, it should include a recap of key ideas
that you have learned in the course in the context of your past, present, and
anticipated future plans in the field.
Option C: Voluntary Services or
Materials.
This option involves using the content of the course to help another person or
an entire organization or entity out. This could be helping a non-profit agency
with a strategic plan involving IT or HPT content. It might take the form of
tutoring, mentoring, or teaching one or more people about the field of IT or
HPT. You might develop an instructional module or maybe try your luck at a personal
tutorial. You might also create a lecture or speech that you deliver in a class,
conference workshop, or some other training event. A 1-2 page single spaced
reflection paper should be included with this assignment. First, that paper should
explain the conceptual aspects of your final project. Second, it should include
a recap of key ideas that you have learned in the course in the context of your
past, present, and anticipated future plans in the field.
Grading of the final will depend,
in part, on which option was selected. Be sure to include references (in APA
format), examples, and evidence where appropriate. Key terms should be defined
in a key or ending glossary. The final product or design should display some
sense of creativity as well as unity in the design.
Option D: Leader in the Field
Video Reviews and Reflections.
AECT Legacies and Legends
project:
Those selecting this option should watch video interview reflections or
presentations from at least five leaders in the field of instructional and
educational technology (e.g., Robert Reiser, Mike Molenda, Charlie Reigeluth,
David Merrill, Michael Spector, Mendel Sherman, Marcy Driscoll, Robert Gagne,
Rita Richey, Phil Harris, Robert Mayer, David Jonassen, Tom Reeves, Mike
Hannafin, Kay Persichitte, Kyle Peck, etc.). Many video links are listed below
in this syllabus (see the “Course Readings and Videos” section). More such
video interviews of stars in the field are at the AECT Legacies and Legends
project (see http://aectlegends.org/#). If you select
this option, you are to write a 4-5 page single spaced reflection (perhaps 2,000-3,000
words or more) of the insights, concerns, commonalities, disagreements,
suggestions, trends, experiences, projects, and technologies mentioned by these
thought leaders. What are some of the issues raised in these videos that the
field of instructional and educational technology needs to address? What might
the future hold for the field according to these experts? Please include one or
more tables with the themes which run through 2 or more of the videos. You
should also include a table with a list of questions that you might want to ask
one or more of them. Your paper should indicate which person or people
mentioned the particular issues, trends, and needs. In addition, somewhere in
your paper you should list the expert videos in which you watched (i.e., a
reference section).
Option E. Silver Lining for
Learning.
In March 2020, my colleagues and I
started a weekly show called Silver Lining for Learning. Each Saturday, we
feature people or a project related to the field of educational technology that
offers a ray of hope during the COVID-19 pandemic. See https://silverliningforlearning.org. Those
selecting this option should watch at least five Silver Lining for Learning
episodes. If you select this option, you are to write a 4-5 page single spaced
reflection (perhaps 2,000-3,000 words or more) of the insights, concerns,
commonalities, disagreements, suggestions, trends, experiences, projects, and
technologies mentioned by these thought leaders. What are some of the issues
raised in these videos that the field of instructional and educational
technology needs to address? What might the future hold for the field according
to these experts? Please include one or more tables with the themes which run
through 2 or more of the videos. You should also include a table with a list of
questions that might you want to ask one or more of them. Your paper should
indicate which person or people mentioned the particular issues, trends, and
needs. In addition, somewhere in your paper, you should list the expert videos
in which you watched (i.e., a reference section).
Option F: Personal Choice or
Design.
This option allows you to design your own final product that meets the goals of
showing your knowledge growth within this course. You will need to obtain
approval from the course instructor by March 1st if you intend to select this
option.
Task #6 Option F Examples:
1.
R511
Final Projects, April 2016, Blended Learning and Career Readiness
Russell Ryan (voiceover slides)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5vTM-S2Oc0ldXEtYWJQeE1fOTg/view
Schedule of Weekly Course Readings and Videos
Weekly Instructional Task: There are 3 to
6 articles assigned each week. You are required to read 3 or 4 of them. Your
choice.
If
you find interesting articles to read in one of the recommended books above
(i.e., Januszewski and Molenda (2008) and Reiser and Dempsey (3rd
edition in 2012 or 4th edition in 2018)), Carr-Chellman, A. A.,
& Rowland, G. (Eds.) (2017). Issues in technology, learning, and
instructional design: Classic and contemporary issues. NY: Routledge.
(Note: Free e-book at IU: https://iucat.iu.edu/iub/16124646); Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (2021). Design for Learning: Principles, Processes, and
Praxis (1st ed.). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id (free); Olaf
Zawacki-Richter & Insung Jung (Eds.) (2022). Handbook of open, distance
and digital education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0351-9 (free); Donald
Clark, Great Minds on Learning podcast (21 shows), https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/great-minds-on-learning/id1582598860
You can substitute any chapter or
article at any time without penalty. I also highly recommend that you watch the
video interviews with many of the highly well-known authors below so that you
will be better able to recognize these IT and HPT leaders and appreciate their
decades of commitment to the profession. Note that I have also included 4 of my 8 video lectures on learning
theories which I produced back in September 2008. The whole 8-pack of talks is now
available via this easy-to-remember link: http://curtbonk.com/8-pack.
Week
1 (January 9). Module #1: Course Introductions and Open Explore Week
Open Week: I recommend
that you download all of the articles and read through a few of them (the link
will be posted to Canvas as well as sent to you via email).
1. Dewey,
John (1897, January). My pedagogic creed. School Journal,
54, pp. 77-80. Retrieved from http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm
Week
2 (January 16). Module #2: Instructional Technology Overview
1. Januszewski,
A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Chapter 1: Definition. In Educational Technology:
A Definition with Commentary (pp. 1-14). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. (see also video interview with Dr. Molenda on his definition of
educational technology for AECT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXSqkcwjCss).
2. Januszewski,
A., & Perischitte, K. A. (2008). Chapter 10: A history of the AECT’s
definitions of educational technology. In Educational Technology: A
Definition with Commentary (pp. 259-282). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
3. Molenda,
M., & Boling, E. (2008). Chapter 4: Creating. In Educational Technology:
A Definition with Commentary (pp. 81-139). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
4. Reiser,
R. A. (2018). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our
field. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology (4th Ed.), (pp. 1-7). New
York, NY: Pearson Education.
5. Spector,
M. (2008). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V.
Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 21-28).
New York: Taylor & Francis Group. (see also video interview with Michael
Spector (40:16): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjI9eZPJfPs).
6.
Collis,
B., & Moonen, J. (2002). Flexible learning in a digital world. Open
Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 17(2). 217-230.
7.
Reeves, T. C., & Lin, L. (2020). The research
we have is not what we need. Educational Technology Research and
Development (ETR&D), 68(4), 1991-2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09811-3
8.
Anderson,
T., & Rivera-Vargas, P. (2020, June). A critical look at educational
technology from a distance education perspective. Digital Education Review,
37, 208-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2020.37.208-229; Retrieve from https://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/der/article/view/30917
Week 3 (January 23). Module #3: Instructional
Systems Design
1. Branch,
R. M. (2018). Characteristics of instructional design models. In R. A. Reiser
& J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and
technology (4th Ed.), (pp. 23-30). New York, NY: Pearson
Education.
2. Willis,
J. (2011). The cultures of contemporary instructional design scholarship, part
one: Developments based on behavioral and cognitive science foundations. Educational
Technology, 51(1), 3-20.
3. Dick,
W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2001). The
systematic design of instruction (5th ed.) (pp. 2-14). New
York: Longman.
4. Morrison,
G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2007). Introduction to the instructional
design process. Designing effective
instruction. (5th ed.) (pp. xviii-26). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
5. Zemke,
R., & Rossett, A. (2002). A hard look at ISD. Training, 39(2),
26-34.
6. Mintz,
Steven (2021, February 8). 7 innovative approaches to course design. Inside
Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/7-innovative-approaches-course-design
Week
4 (January 30). Module #4: Instructional Development Process
1. Molenda,
M., Pershing, J.A., & Reigeluth, C.M. (1996). Designing instructional
systems. In R.L. Craig (Ed.), The ASTD Training and Development Handbook
4th ed. (pp. 266-280). New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Driscoll,
M. P. (2000). Gagné’s theory of instruction. Ch. 10 in Psychology of
Learning for Instruction, 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
341-372 (see also a Tribute to Robert Gagne (57:30): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggJ1-AjlGeE).
3. Merrill,
M. David. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology
Research & Development 50(3), 43-59 (see in 2012 video interview
with David Merrill (53:56): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7COb2aZDrcs).
4. Reigeluth,
C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence
decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and
Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (pp. 425-453). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum. (see also video interview “Talking
Reinventing Public Schools with Dr. Charles Reigeluth” (19:36); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrT_s0Lk_WM
and Charles Reigeluth: What education
could be – roles (4:23): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_3iy-O_03M and Charles Reigeluth: Why systemic change is important (4:29) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVFiwRMywqM
5.
Podcast – “Gagne's and his theory of instruction,” Curt Bonk and
Chris Essex (my former podcast partner who is now deceased), March 28, 2006.
Audio podcast (Length: 21:25): http://curtbonk.com/gagne-mp3.html
Week
5 (February 6). Module #5: Theories of Learning: Behaviorism
1. Skinner,
B.F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard
Educational Review 24:1: 86-97.
2. Saettler,
P. (1990c). Behaviorism and educational technology: 1950 - 1980. Ch. 10 in The
Evolution of American Educational Technology (pp. 286-317).
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
3. Driscoll,
M. P. (2005). Radical behaviorism. In Psychology
of learning for instruction (3rd ed.) (pp. 29-69). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
a. Or
see: Gredler, M. (2001). B. F. Skinner’s operant conditioning. In her book on
Learning and Instruction (4th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill-Prentice Hall.
4. Foshay,
R (July 2001). Is Behaviorism dead? Should HPT care? ISPI News & Notes,
1-2.
5. Mayer,
R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery
learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
6. Video Lecture Supplement: Curt Bonk
on Behaviorism (Ivan Pavlov, John Watson, and B. F. Skinner as well as Hermann
Ebbinghaus and Edward Thorndike). Archive URL (45 minutes): https://youtu.be/KefAapQdAHs
Week
6 (February 13). Module #6: Cognitive and Constructivist Perspectives
1. Silber,
K. H., & Foshay, W. R. (2006). Designing instructional strategies: A
cognitive perspective. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human
performance technology (3rd ed.) (370-413). San Francisco:
Pfeiffer.
2. Mayer,
R., E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in
multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. (see
also video interview: “Talking multimedia learning with Dr. Richard Mayer”
(19:20): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5eY9k3v4mE)
and Research-based principles for
multimedia learning (presentation at Harvard May 5, 2014) (124:27): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ3wSf-ccXo
3. Duffy,
T. M., & Raymer, P. L. (2010). A practical guide and a constructivist
rationale for inquiry based learning. Educational Technology, 50(4),
3-15.
4. Wilson,
B. G. (2018). Constructivism, for active authentic learning. In R. A. Reiser
& J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and
technology (4th Ed.), (pp. 60-67). New York, NY: Pearson
Education.
5. Jonassen,
D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. ETR&D, 48(4),
63-85 (see also “An interview with David Jonassen: Problem Solving in the
humanities” (9:21): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCBXg_49gZw;
See also a more recent interview (35:19): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhnotpgru-4.
2013 AERA Fellow (37 seconds): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDFoD06BARM
6. Spiro,
R.J., Coulson, R.L., Feltovich, P.J., & Anderson, D.K. (1988). Cognitive
flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Technical Report No. 441.
7. Savery,
J.R. (2019). Comparative pedagogical models of problem-based
learning. In M. Moallem, W. Hung and N. Dabbagh (Eds.) Wiley
Handbook of Problem-Based Learning, (pp. 81-104) John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
Also
see:
a. Savery, J. R.,
& Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and
its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35, (5), 31-38.
b. Savery, J. R.,
& Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and
its constructivist framework. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning
environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135-148). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
c. Savery, J. R.,
& Duffy, T. M. (2001, June). Problem-based learning: An instructional model
and its constructivist framework. CRLT Technical Report No. 16-01, pp.
1-17. Indiana University Bloomington.
7. Video Lecture Supplement: Curt Bonk
on the Cognitive Information Processing (CIP) model. Archive URL (73 minutes): https://youtu.be/xQsTUPI-Qbw
8. Video Lecture Supplement: Curt Bonk on
Cognitive and Social Constructivism, including Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky,
Jerome Bruner, and Robert Gagne. Archive URL (45 minutes): https://youtu.be/YMoH2X_bjEw
Week 7 (February 20). Module #7: Authentic
Learning and Cognitive Apprenticeship
1. Brown,
J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture
of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
a. See
also: Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive
apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator. Retrieved
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.124.8616&rep=rep1&type=pdf
2. CTGV
(Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt) (1993). Anchored instruction and
situated cognition revisited. Educational
Technology, 33(3), 52-70.
3. Lave,
J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated
learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge
Press (Note: pp. 29-43 only)
4. Herrington,
J. & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic
learning environments. ETR&D, 48(3), pp. 23-48.
5.
Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic e-learning in
higher education: Design principles for authentic learning environments and
tasks. In proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate,
Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (E-Learn) 2006, October 13-27,
2006, Honolulu, Hawaii. Retrieved from http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/5247/1/Authentic_e-learning(authors).pdf
6.
Lockee,
B., & Song, K. (2016). The AECT Legends and Legacies Project. TechTrends, 60(2),
107-109.
7.
Lockee, B. B., Song, K., & Li, W. (2014,
September-October). The AECT HistoryMakers Project: Conversations with leaders
in educational technology. Educational
Technology, 54(5), 42-45.
Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44430305.pdf
8. Bonk,
C. J. (2018, November). Tapping into history via video:
Enlisting the legends and legacies of our field. TechTrends,
62(6), 538-540. DOI: 10.1007/s11528-018-0332-3
9. Video Lecture Supplement: Curt Bonk
on Constructivism, Social Constructivism, Learner-Centered Instruction, and
PBL. Archive URL (41 minutes): https://youtu.be/qJKofs2PuBU
Week
8 (February 27). Module #8: Theories of Learning: Comparison
1. Reeves,
T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (2015). Learning. In L. Cantoni & J. A. Danowski
(Eds.), Communication and Technology: Handbook of Communication
Science (pp. 467-483). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. (See also
interview of Dr. Tom Reeves, The University of Georgia (26:19): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU32W1oclnw)
2. Driscoll,
M. P. (2018). Psychological foundations of instructional design. In R. A.
Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends
and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed.)
(pp. 51-60). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
3. Ertmer,
P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism:
Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.
4. Bonk,
C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Chapter 2: Searching
for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of
collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk, & K. S. King
(Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for
literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Grabinger,
S. R. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook
of research for educational communications and technology. NY: Simon &
Schuster Macmillan.
6. Perkins,
D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational
Researcher, 18(1). 16-25.
7. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The new science of learning. In R. K.
Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.
1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Ellen
D. Wagner and Barbara L. McCombs (1995, March/April). Learner centered
psychological principles in practice: Designs for distance education. Educational
Technology, 35(2), 33-35.
Week
9 (March 6). Module #9: History of IT
1. Cho, Y., Park,
S., Jo, S. J., & Suh, S. (2013). The landscape of educational technology
viewed from the ETR&D journal. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 44(5). 677-694.
2. Bonk, C. J., & Wiley, D. (2020). Preface: Reflections on
the waves of emerging learning technology. Educational Technology
Research and Development (ETR&D), 68(4), 1595-1612.
DOI 10.1007/s11423-020-09809-x. Available: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11423-020-09809-x.pdf and http://publicationshare.com/28
3. Reiser, R. A.
(2018). A history of instructional design and technology. In R. A. Reiser,
& J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and
issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed.)
(pp. 8-22). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. (see also video interview with
Dr. Reiser (22:24): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8TKA7ta7gU).
4. Molenda,
M. (2008). Historical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V.
Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-20).
New York: Taylor & Francis Group. (see also video conference with Dr.
Molenda (53:28): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BigNdMiyHbI
5. Various
“History Makers” Project and AECT Legends and Legacies” Videos; See index: http://aectlegends.org/:
1. Dr.
Robert (Bob) Appelman (29:46): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TipGTRlJZg4
2. Dr.
Ivor Davies (47:44): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_de5F-gf8t8
3. Dr.
Malcolm Fleming (23:16): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZtzeeR_9R4
4. Dr.
Mike Hannafin (24:11): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdo1h4zT1GE
5. Dr.
Phil Harris (22:50): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBwBl2uyT4M
6. Dr.
Robert Heinich (50:14): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw-8I09QdMk
7. Dr.
Mary Herring (18:15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK1Jcw7ZjZk
8. Dr.
Roger Kaufman (18:16): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0uxzkOmJnQ
9. Dr.
Kyle Peck (26:11): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_jC0bhnQAI
10. Dr.
Kay Persichitte (31:57): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dalz555GB_w
11. Dr.
Rita Richey (43:35), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1kafjVHwQ8
12. Dr.
Mendel Sherman (44:14): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROh41-P8a50
13. Dr.
Walt Wittich (27:40): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2opzSlpcQMY
14. Dr.
Leo P.K. Yam, Hong Kong AECT Founder (31:45): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aynB3Epv6Iw
Week
10 (March 20). Module #10: Trends and Issues in IT
1.
Martin, F., Dennen, V. P., & Bonk, C, J.
(2020). A synthesis of systematic review research on emerging learning
environments and technologies. Educational Technology Research and
Development (ETR&D), 68(4), 1613-1634. DOI
10.1007/s11423-020-09812-2. Available: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11423-020-09812-2.pdf and http://publicationshare.com/29
2. Martinez, S., &
Whiting, J. (2021). Designing informal learning environments. In J.
K. McDonald & R. E. West (Eds.), Design for learning: Principles, processes,
and praxis. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id/designing_informal
3. Mishra,
P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same:
Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5),
48-53.
4. Boling,
E., & Smith, K. M. (2018). The changing nature of design. In R. A. Reiser
& J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and
technology (4th Ed.) (pp. 60-67). New York, NY: Pearson
Education.
5. Clark, R. E.
(1994). Media will never influence learning. ETR&D, 42(2),
21- 29. (see video interview with Richard Clark (108:58): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR6IJrh6pxI).
6. Kozma, R. B.
(1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. ETR&D, 42(2),
7-19.
7. Bonk, C. J.
(2020). Pandemic ponderings, 30 years to today:
Synchronous signals, saviors, or survivors? Distance Education, 41(4),
589-599. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1821610
Week
11 (March 27). Module #11: Human Performance Tech: Concepts and Process Models
1. Gawande, A.
(2007, December 10). The checklist. The New Yorker, 86-95.
2. Pershing,
J. (2006). Human performance technology fundamentals. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook
of human performance technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 5-34). San Francisco:
Pfeiffer.
3. Martin,
F., Hall, H. A. IV, Blakely, A., Gayford, M. C., & Gunter, E. (2009). The
HPT model applied to a kayak company’s registration process. Performance
Improvement, 48(3), 26-35.
4. Wilmoth, F. S.,
Prigmore, C., & Bray, M. (2010). HPT models. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh
(Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace, vol. 2:
Selecting and implementing performance interventions (pp. 5-26). Silver
Spring, MD: International Soceity for Performance Improvement.
5. Van
Tiem, D. M., Mosely, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2004). Performance
technology - defined. In D. M. Van Tiem, J. L. Moseley, & J. C. Dessinger
(Eds.), Fundamentals of performance technology (pp. 2-20). Washington,
DC: International Society for Performance Improvement.
6. Cheng,
J., Son, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2010). Technology and knowledge management. In
M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. O’Connor (Eds.), International
Handbook of Workplace Learning (pp. 381-391). Sage Publications.
Week
12 (April 3). Module #12: History, Trends, and Issues in HPT
1. Rummler,
G. A. (2007). The past is prologue: An eyewitness account of HPT. Performance
Improvement, 46(10), 5-9.
2. Stolovitch,
H. D. (2018). The development and evolution of human performance improvement. In
R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional
design and technology (4th Ed.), (pp. 121-131). New York, NY:
Pearson Education.
3. Stolovitch,
H. D. (2015). Human performance technology: Research and theory to practice. Performance
Improvement, 54(3).
4. Cho,
Y., Jo, S. J., Park, S., Kang, I., & Chen, Z. (2011). The current state of
human performance technology: A citation network analysis of Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 1988-2010. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
24(1), 69-95.
5. Pershing,
J. A., Lee, J., & Cheng, J. (2008). Current status, future trends, and
issues in human performance technology, part 1: Influential domains, current
status, and recognition of HPT. Performance Improvement, 47(1),
9-17.
6. Kim,
K.-J., Bonk, C. J., & Teng, Y.-T. (2009,
August). The present state and future trends of blended
learning in workplace learning settings across five countries. Asia Pacific Education Review (APER), 10(3). (or perhaps something
more specific: Teng, Y.-T., Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K.-J.
(2009, February). The trend of blended learning in Taiwan: Perceptions of HRD
practitioners and implications for emerging competencies. HRD International,
12(1), 69-84.)
7.
Bonk,
C. J., Lee. M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (2018). The emergence
and design of massive open online courses. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey
(Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th
Ed.), (pp. 250-258). New York, NY: Pearson Education. Preprint available: http://www.publicationshare.com/3
8. 2022 Workplace
Learning Report (2022). The Transformation of L&D. Retrieved from https://learning.linkedin.com/resources/workplace-learning-report
Week
13 (April 10). Module #13: Professional Ethics and Social Change
1. Guerra,
J. A. (2006). Standards and ethics in human performance technology. In J. A.
Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd
ed.) (pp. 1024-1046). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
2.
Smaldino,
S. E., Donaldson, J. A., & Herring, M. (2018). Professional ethics: Rules
applied to practice. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and
issues in instructional design and technology (4th Ed.), (pp. 303-308).
New York, NY: Pearson Education. (see also video interview with Dr. Smaldino
(43:59): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOjhdH4dAE4)
3. Banaji,
M. R., Bazerman, M. H., & Chugh, D. (2003, December). How (un)ethical are
you? Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 56-65.
4. Kowch,
Eugene (2018, June 7). Conversations from Southeast Asia: Should we imagine
social entrepreneurship as a catalyst for positive change? TechTrends, 62,
213-316.
5. Bradshaw,
Amy C. (2018, March 23). Reconsidering the instructional design and technology
timeline through a lens of social justice. TechTrends, 62, 336-344.
Week
14 (April 17). Module #14: Career and Professional Development
1. Klein,
J. D., & Rushby, N. (2018). Getting involved in instructional design and
technology: Recommendations for Professional Development. In R. A. Reiser &
J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and
technology (4th ed.) (pp. 219-228). Boston, MA: Pearson Education,
Inc.
2.
Ritzhaupt,
A. D., Martin, F., Pastore, R., & Kang, Y. (2018). Development and
validation of the Educational Technologist Competencies Survey (ETCS):
Knowledge, skills, and abilities. Journal
of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1),
3-33.
3.
Kang,
Y. & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2015). A job announcement analysis of educational
technology professional positions: Knowledge, skills, and abilities. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 43(3),
231-256.
4.
Ritzhaupt,
A. D., & Kang, Y. (2015). Are we ready for bachelor’s degrees in
educational technology?: Perceptions from the field and a proposal. Educational Technology, 55(3),
14-22.
5.
Kumar,
S. & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2017). What do instructional designers in higher
education really do? International
Journal of E-Learning, 16(4), 371-393.
6. Wang,
X., Chen, Y, Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Martin, F. (in press). Examining
competencies for the instructional design professional: An exploratory job
announcement analysis. International Journal of Training and Development.
DOI:
10.1111/ijtd.12209
7.
Shironica
P. Karunanayaka & Som Naidu (2021). Impacts of authentic assessment on the
development of graduate attributes, Distance Education, 42(2),
231-252, DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2021.1920206
Week 15 (April 24). Module #15: More
Career and PD Discussion, Personal Explorations, and Final Projects
1.
Basdogan,
M., Ozdogan, Z., & Bonk, C. J. (2020). Understanding the diverse field of
“educational technology” as revealed in Twitter job postings: Encoding/decoding
approach. The Qualitative Report, 25(8), 2044-2066.
Available: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol25/iss8/3
2. Gabrielli,
G. K., & Branson, R. K. (2012). Getting a job in business and industry. In
R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional
design and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 263-272). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
3. Intentional
Futures (2016, April). Instructional design in higher education: A report on
the role, workflow, and experience of instructional designers.
4. Reiser,
R. A. (2012). Getting an instructional design position: Lessons from a personal
history. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 256-262).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
5.
Kim, Joshua (2018, June 6). A traditional Ph.D. does not an instructional
designer make,
Inside Higher Ed, https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/technology-and-learning/traditional-phd-does-not-instructional-designer-make
6. Kim, Joshua, (2018, March 8). Career Opportunities at the
Intersection of Learning and Technology: A talent shortage?, Joshua Kim, Inside
Higher Ed, https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/career-opportunities-intersection-learning-and-technology